Meh no different than when a fighter is out via punches and gets a few to the back of the head in the process of slumping/ turning over etc.

Actually it makes a HUUUUGE difference in my opinion. I haven't rewatched this particular fight to see how many (or if any) were illegal, so won't go one way or another on this particular occasion. However, in general I think it makes a huge difference for the 1, sole reason that "comebacks" are even possible. Think of ANY fight, ever, where a particular fighter seemed to be completely 100% out, yet the ref let it continue & that fighter came back to win. Just a recent example off the top of my head is Kongo vs Pat Barry...Kongo looked out, so you're saying if there had been a few (OR EVEN 1) shot to the back of the head that made ALL THE DIFFERENCE in him, subsequently, reaching a state of unconsciousness, that it would be of absolutely no consequence...since he was "already out & done anyway" (as we, the public may have seen it)??

.....EDIT TO SAY.....In a fight that ends via KO because of a gnp onslaught, it is practically impossible to pinpoint the ONE SINGLE SHOT that put the opposing fighter out, so if there are 99 completely legitimate strikes & 1 illegal, there's still a chance that the illegal shot made all the difference & can subsequently be argued that the losing fighter, in the absence of that illegality, could/would have come back & racked up the W.

The hell are you rambling on about

??? please elaborate as to what the hell you're question is asking. Is that meant to say "I don't agree so I'm going to say [THIS]. Or do you honestly not understand my rhetoric, grammar, or phrasing used in my post? If the case has to do with the latter, I'm sorry but I do not have the time to simplify my statements so that your mind can comprehend them in an elementary-level structure.

Shawn91111

5/13/13 8:07:23PM

Posted by Tyzzler

Posted by Shawn91111

Posted by Tyzzler

Posted by Shawn91111

Meh no different than when a fighter is out via punches and gets a few to the back of the head in the process of slumping/ turning over etc.

Actually it makes a HUUUUGE difference in my opinion. I haven't rewatched this particular fight to see how many (or if any) were illegal, so won't go one way or another on this particular occasion. However, in general I think it makes a huge difference for the 1, sole reason that "comebacks" are even possible. Think of ANY fight, ever, where a particular fighter seemed to be completely 100% out, yet the ref let it continue & that fighter came back to win. Just a recent example off the top of my head is Kongo vs Pat Barry...Kongo looked out, so you're saying if there had been a few (OR EVEN 1) shot to the back of the head that made ALL THE DIFFERENCE in him, subsequently, reaching a state of unconsciousness, that it would be of absolutely no consequence...since he was "already out & done anyway" (as we, the public may have seen it)??

.....EDIT TO SAY.....In a fight that ends via KO because of a gnp onslaught, it is practically impossible to pinpoint the ONE SINGLE SHOT that put the opposing fighter out, so if there are 99 completely legitimate strikes & 1 illegal, there's still a chance that the illegal shot made all the difference & can subsequently be argued that the losing fighter, in the absence of that illegality, could/would have come back & racked up the W.

The hell are you rambling on about

??? please elaborate as to what the hell you're question is asking. Is that meant to say "I don't agree so I'm going to say [THIS]. Or do you honestly not understand my rhetoric, grammar, or phrasing used in my post? If the case has to do with the latter, I'm sorry but I do not have the time to simplify my statements so that your mind can comprehend them in an elementary-level structure.

But you did have time to go back and find this month old thread. Gotcha